The Decrypted are the solution to this problem. In Haffaton, the Uncroaked forces would decay, giving them an expiration date. Over a large timescale, Uncroaked provide not much more than the sum of their momentary advantage in each battle. They're a combat tactic, and they're very useful at that, but they don't help support the empire; they're just the weapon. This is why Haffaton was relatively sparse in the heartland; what units were popped would need to be sent to the front to support expansion. Decrypted never decay, and if you're willing to use them intelligently, then it's Decrypted that fill your heartland. They cost nothing, they don't prevent you from popping units and sending them to the fronts, they never decay, and they're a renewable resource. This part's all common knowledge.

0beron wrote:

True they are not limited by UPKEEP, but they could still fall prey to the paper tiger fate of Haffaton. Decrypted are a one-shot unit, once they dust they're gone, and you're guaranteed to lose some in every combat. So as you're forced to fight on more and more fronts, your force could be subject to diminishing returns. Not sure if this will be the case, but it's a possible parallel of the upkeep problem Haffaton had.

Which force is subject to diminishing returns? Parson's chat with Charlie strongly suggests that cities give diminishing returns, but this doesn't seem to apply to forces. If it does apply to forces, it definitely does not apply to Decrypted forces.

0beron wrote:

True, and that's kinda my point. The real problem for Haffaton wasn't their lack of money in of itself, it was that they are too big to defend themselves given their economic resources. Having the Decrypted only goes so far to address that problem, but that doesn't completely eliminate it.

I disagree. There has been, thus far, zero indication that the Decrypted cannot adequately resolve this issue. Haffaton, without Decrypted, seems to be able to steamroll its neighbors without much trouble, though we haven't yet directly seen them do it. Adding Decrypted to the equation provides complete back-fill for all cities in the empire, preventing you from ever becoming too spread out to defend yourself.

The only weak point that I see is an over-commitment to using Wanda on the front. To really fill up the interior, you would want her instead doing Stanly's dwagon-harvesting trick on spawned barbarians, unaffiliated natural allies, captured units, and the last turn's battlefields. Putting her on the front gives you a combat bonus and real-time Decryption, letting you prevent some combat losses. But tying her to the combat zone prevents a lot of other activity that it seems you would want. In light of the fact that Decrypted can turn, I'd also generally suggest against putting Decrypted on the front lines until the side that spawned them is crushed, which would be easier if you kept Wanda farming. In other words, given GK's strategic resources, I'd have advocated for slow and steady. It'd be almost impossible to sustain net losses in any direction, and even occasional territorial gains are easily and quickly shored up with defenses.

True they are not limited by UPKEEP, but they could still fall prey to the paper tiger fate of Haffaton. Decrypted are a one-shot unit, once they dust they're gone, and you're guaranteed to lose some in every combat. So as you're forced to fight on more and more fronts, your force could be subject to diminishing returns. Not sure if this will be the case, but it's a possible parallel of the upkeep problem Haffaton had.

Which force is subject to diminishing returns? Parson's chat with Charlie strongly suggests that cities give diminishing returns, but this doesn't seem to apply to forces. If it does apply to forces, it definitely does not apply to Decrypted forces.

My phrase "diminishing returns" meant that you would not be able to maintain a campaign in which you recoup more Decrypted than you lost. Your force of Decrypted could gradually diminish if you're forced to fight a multiple-front war.

twhitt wrote:

0beron wrote:

True, and that's kinda my point. The real problem for Haffaton wasn't their lack of money in of itself, it was that they are too big to defend themselves given their economic resources. Having the Decrypted only goes so far to address that problem, but that doesn't completely eliminate it.

I disagree. There has been, thus far, zero indication that the Decrypted cannot adequately resolve this issue. Haffaton, without Decrypted, seems to be able to steamroll its neighbors without much trouble, though we haven't yet directly seen them do it. Adding Decrypted to the equation provides complete back-fill for all cities in the empire, preventing you from ever becoming too spread out to defend yourself.

This plan relies on normal units still being affordable as the diminishing economic returns of having so many cities grows. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it'd be a mistake to assume you could sustain a successful campaign without sending some of the Decrypted into combat as well.It's hard to say for sure either way, I just feel that big sides are always going to have some kind of weakpoint. (in this situation, it'd obviously be Wanda's betrayal or her being croaked) If anyone can make it work though, it'd be Parson.

_________________"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."

I don't know/remember much about erfworld economics, but being a large empire is bad for a side with decryption, only if new cities will start generating less income than what they cost, which would mean that conquering new cities would actually reduce the amount of non-decrypted forces you can have.

And if that happens, the amount of non-decrypted you can have would become so low (while your empire is getting bigger) that your decrypted army can barely defend your own lands.

Personally, i don't think this problem can be solved with "just" one Arkentool. I believe Lord Hamster will somehow make use of the Arkenhammer, at least.

Maybe the purpose of the 4 arkentools are to be united in one side and sustain it without war, if their "synergies" are used wisely ?

Edit: Maybe having all of them actually provides a special power / synergy bonus? Maybe a single side having more than 1 attuned Arkentool actually provides bonuses too but we don't know because Stanley , at the moment, can't use full power of the Arkenhammer?

_________________

JadedDragoon wrote:

I was hoping we could debate the meaning of "agent" in the the Declaration of Non-Aggression again. It totally hasn't been argued to death already.

You know... at this point you boops aren't beating dead horses any more. You're making glue.

Last edited by zilfallon on Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

personally, i don't think this problem can be solved with "just" one arkentool. i believe lord hamster will somehow make use of the arkenhammer, at least.maybe the purpose of the 4 arkentools are to be united in one side and sustain it without war, if their "synergies" are used wisely?

Totally agree on both of these points. The big-side problem isn't something just one 'Tool should be able to fix, and bringing all 4 of them together is/could be the way to end the NEED for war in Erfworld (although I suspect they may have other uses when combined, and those who collect them will have a choice to make)

_________________"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."

My phrase "diminishing returns" meant that you would not be able to maintain a campaign in which you recoup more Decrypted than you lost. Your force of Decrypted could gradually diminish if you're forced to fight a multiple-front war.

Sure you can. Send a force of mostly living units to the front, then Decrypt the dead from both sides. You would lose some units that cost upkeep, and gain many more that cost nothing. The potentially unloyal new units get shifted back to defend some other city, or to another front. The Decrypted that started as GK units can remain with the attacking force. This is straight-up conventional warfare as practiced on Erf for uncounted turns, plus the advantage of minuscule actual losses.

0beron wrote:

This plan relies on normal units still being affordable as the diminishing economic returns of having so many cities grows. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it'd be a mistake to assume you could sustain a successful campaign without sending some of the Decrypted into combat as well.It's hard to say for sure either way, I just feel that big sides are always going to have some kind of weakpoint. (in this situation, it'd obviously be Wanda's betrayal or her being croaked) If anyone can make it work though, it'd be Parson.

It's true, it does depend on the idea that you can continue to pop living units in every city; we have a few reasons to thing this is so. Progrock, notably. "If that's true, then from the air they looked about two-thirds living to one-third Decrypted." http://www.erfworld.com/book-2-archive/?px=%2F2011-03-10.png There was also a comment about razing and rebuilding cities so that they would produce the same unit types as the GK capital, which I don't especially care to find at the moment. This would be a consideration only if GK were using those cities to actually pop units. You don't need to plan on keeping and paying for these units forever, but only until they're croaked.

Or at least it shows us that even basic troops (as in non-ruler, non-warlord, non-caster, non-leadership units) can consider the idea of an erf-wide peace a reasonable one.

As an extension to your question... is this frame of mind enabled because of being decrypted?

And in response to BOTH your questions...could we really consider Archons to be "basic units"..? even ones which lack the leadership special seem more "cognizant" than Dwagons, a unit of comparable power.

Dwagons, I think, would classify as beasts. They can't use Language. More comparable would be your average stabber.

My phrase "diminishing returns" meant that you would not be able to maintain a campaign in which you recoup more Decrypted than you lost. Your force of Decrypted could gradually diminish if you're forced to fight a multiple-front war.

Dragon relay.. Wanda could do a lap of the empire every turn if she wanted to... and Stanley let her do it

I liked this update, it deals with the questioning of war and the way of life this unit and possibly other units are having. Units fought before out of loyalty and because it's what they did but they never questioned that fact.

Totally agree on both of these points. The big-side problem isn't something just one 'Tool should be able to fix, and bringing all 4 of them together is/could be the way to end the NEED for war in Erfworld (although I suspect they may have other uses when combined, and those who collect them will have a choice to make)

I'm not sure any tools are actually needed. The true reasons for the more-or-less perpetual war in Erfworld are, as far as we know, things like paranoia, hunger for power, ignorance, uncertainty... It would be perfectly possible for all Sides to remain small and self-sufficient. If nobody fights and nobody pops new units once their upkeep gets close to their income, if everybody lets other sides check their army sizes and positions, if everybody agrees to non-aggression pacts with debilitating penalty clauses, if everybody tries to cooperate towards restoring this state any time a random event disrupts it... You get stable peace.

Problem is there's too many people with Ambitions

And we should bear in mind that Erfworld is designed to *encourage* war. Consider the economies of current Sides. We are told that bigger sides run into problems and simple logic tells us that these problems must be built into the very laws of the world. You see, basic geometry tells us that without some kind of artificial penalty a Side that would double the length of its borders (needing twice more troops to maintain the density of its border defenses) should have four times the number of cities (and the same would go for income). A Side big enough could have garrisons ten times FAQ's total army in every city within ten turn's move into its borders, one scout in every hex in its territory and *still gain huge amounts of schmuckers every turn*. Say, you make your Side's territory ten times longer and ten times wider, meaning your borders are ten times longer - and you own hundred times more cities because your *area* grows faster than your borders. So there has to be some kind of penalty that cripples big sides and therefore encourages warfare and instability. In Erfworld, being too small makes you easy prey and being too big undermines your economy and the density of your defences, and you are threatened by enemies of all sizes so you can't optimize for one scenario. Cue perpetual warfare.

Heck, Erfworld must be full of small, efficient sides that only exist for a short while before they get wiped out. Notice how all the big players (ignoring Decrypted here) depend on conquest to maintain their overgrown armies? Notice how many cities get razed? This means the world must be full of small, fresh Sides that basically serve to efficiently generate resources and then get wiped out and this goes on and on. They spend their brief existences generating resources (unencumbered by the mystic big-side penalty) and then they are harvested by Sides too big to maintain their own armies without looting but so big that the small Sides stand next to no chance.

And there's probably nothing Parson's bubble-kingdom tricks can do about this. Sides big enough to be stable will likely remain big enough to bolster their income by looting, and once two or more Sides learn such tricks you are back to square one, only you have less but bigger players. This means I see only three possible scenarios that lead to a stable and relatively peacefull Erfworld

a) one stable Side gets so big no other force can oppose it

b) an alliance of small Sides (or a number of cooperating small sides) decides to prevent the need for war by keeping their armies so small they can pay their upkeep from their own resources AND this alliance is strong enough and cohesive enough to defeat anybody attacking them

c) some mystic force, possibly linked to Arkentools, changes the very laws of Erfworld, for example those that influence upkeep (I'm not sure the Decrypted are such a solution, though)

True they are not limited by UPKEEP, but they could still fall prey to the paper tiger fate of Haffaton. Decrypted are a one-shot unit, once they dust they're gone, and you're guaranteed to lose some in every combat. So as you're forced to fight on more and more fronts, your force could be subject to diminishing returns. Not sure if this will be the case, but it's a possible parallel of the upkeep problem Haffaton had.

twhitt wrote:

Which force is subject to diminishing returns? Parson's chat with Charlie strongly suggests that cities give diminishing returns, but this doesn't seem to apply to forces. If it does apply to forces, it definitely does not apply to Decrypted forces.

0beron wrote:

My phrase "diminishing returns" meant that you would not be able to maintain a campaign in which you recoup more Decrypted than you lost. Your force of Decrypted could gradually diminish if you're forced to fight a multiple-front war.

The fundamental problem here is that for any Side without a Croakamancer, ALL units are one-shot. Wanda's units are a) free and b) zero upkeep, regardless of level. As they fight and units are lost, the other units level up without costing at the Upkeep stage, potentially becoming Uber with no ongoing cost to the Side.

Where other Sides suffer rising upkeep costs with level, GK does not. Where other Sides have high level units that eat into their overall unit count, GK does not, eliminating much of the natural resistance to high unit counts. GK can, essentially, have their cake and eat it, too.

Further, GK can defend cities with zero upkeep units, and maintain outward expansion with regular troops. Where Haffaton had no defenders in that level 2, GK can defend every city.

This means I see only three possible scenarios that lead to a stable and relatively peacefull Erfworld

a) one stable Side gets so big no other force can oppose it

b) an alliance of small Sides (or a number of cooperating small sides) decides to prevent the need for war by keeping their armies so small they can pay their upkeep from their own resources AND this alliance is strong enough and cohesive enough to defeat anybody attacking them

c) some mystic force, possibly linked to Arkentools, changes the very laws of Erfworld, for example those that influence upkeep (I'm not sure the Decrypted are such a solution, though)

Oh, there's other ways. Killing everyone of course. MAD might work if someone figures out how to make nukes or some such thing and you get every capital holding on to some from other sides. Or maybe just assassins as the royal guard. Of course the best thing would be to kill off the meglomaniac leaders, but threatening them should work too.

Of course then you add religion into things and someone might decide it's worth dying and losing a capital full of people to stop that Titan forsaken nonroyal from ruling without a Titanic Mandate.

But really peace seems more possible in Erfworld than in Earthworld. No famines from bad rainstorms forcing people to kill each other to survive, for instance. And few religious differences. War's for profit instead of necessity. Of course even without necessity and (mostly) religion, people still are willing to kill for profit. You can't end war in Erfworld without killing everyone. Every turn. Just like you can't stop war in Earthwold without killing everyone. Though you might be able to make a lot less needless bloodshed. Say by killing Charlie.

That's an excellent point, actually. I guess she isn't counting Gobwin Knob erupting as a battle?

Well I woudnt count it as a battle either. They were winning the actual battle. Very easely in fact. And then the Volcano blow everyone up. You cant exactly blame Charlie for not seeing that coming.

Well, I dunno. If someone's winning a battle convincingly and then their opponent drops a tactical nuclear warhead on the battlezone, I'd still count that as part of the battle.

Agreed. Charlie brought, as per Parsons calculations, enough forces to take the GK garrison. Which would have gotten him the bracer, and possibly Parson if he didn't croak in the attack. But then Charlie allowed himself to be talked out of this 100% win, and stood down out of greed. Parson promised him that GK would have the 'pliers, and Charlie thought that another turn of waiting while the RCC and GK both diminished their available forces and Charlies potential loot increased was a good thing. And he thought wrong. So it's really glossing over the facts to say that Charlie was blindsided by a nuke. It only happened because he gave his opponent the time to deploy it, and that is Charlie's fault alone.

TheTuna wrote:

The fact that Charlie does indeed seem to be taking the losing side against GK really interests me.

From a mercenary standpoint, it makes little sense to anger what would otherwise be your best customer and steadfast ally. This suggests that Charlie, like Janet and Marie, truly believes in Parson's ability to end all conflict in Erfworld, and as such will stop at nothing to halt him before Gobwin Knob grows into an unstoppable juggernaut with the strength of Wanda's Decrypted and Stanley's infinite Dwagons.

Remember that Stanley despises Charlie and won't do business with him. Between that already lost customer and the RCCII royal Sides being led by Jetstone into an embargo of Charlie's services since he is also a Tool, he's hurting for business at least locally. Add in the fact that GK has access to decrypted archons and Charlie fears for his secrets, and it seems to make sense for Charlie to side against GK. Without any details about the enmity of Stanley for Charlie there's no way to measure whether Charlie is making the best call.

_________________How using capslock wins arguments:

Zeroberon wrote:

So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

The fundamental problem here is that for any Side without a Croakamancer, ALL units are one-shot. Wanda's units are a) free and b) zero upkeep, regardless of level. As they fight and units are lost, the other units level up without costing at the Upkeep stage, potentially becoming Uber with no ongoing cost to the Side.

Where other Sides suffer rising upkeep costs with level, GK does not. Where other Sides have high level units that eat into their overall unit count, GK does not, eliminating much of the natural resistance to high unit counts. GK can, essentially, have their cake and eat it, too.

Further, GK can defend cities with zero upkeep units, and maintain outward expansion with regular troops. Where Haffaton had no defenders in that level 2, GK can defend every city.

Exactly right. Except perhaps the part about becoming uber with no ongoing cost. I'm not sure we know that decrypted can level, although since uncroaked can it's a fair bet.

Another advantage, but one which costs, is that the decrypted can be used as a screen or buffer for the living troops. Allowing the living troops kill shots while having the equivalent of shield maidens or pavise troops to protect them so that they level up more quickly and more safely. Sure, a living troop who levels costs more upkeep, but that goes away when he eventually falls and is decrypted.

_________________How using capslock wins arguments:

Zeroberon wrote:

So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

Well, I dunno. If someone's winning a battle convincingly and then their opponent drops a tactical nuclear warhead on the battlezone, I'd still count that as part of the battle.

Agreed. Charlie brought, as per Parsons calculations, enough forces to take the GK garrison. Which would have gotten him the bracer, and possibly Parson if he didn't croak in the attack. But then Charlie allowed himself to be talked out of this 100% win, and stood down out of greed. Parson promised him that GK would have the 'pliers, and Charlie thought that another turn of waiting while the RCC and GK both diminished their available forces and Charlies potential loot increased was a good thing. And he thought wrong. So it's really glossing over the facts to say that Charlie was blindsided by a nuke. It only happened because he gave his opponent the time to deploy it, and that is Charlie's fault alone.

Well, given that there had never been anything even approaching the scale of a WMD on Erf before, there's no reason for the concepts of MAD and self-destruct buttons to be anything but utterly alien to charlie. So, yeah, expecting Charlie to be responsible for preparing for Parson's little uncroaked volcano trick would be like asking the Army Chief of Staff to make a plan for if the North Koreans manage to convert the Moon into their own personal Death Star.

Totally agree on both of these points. The big-side problem isn't something just one 'Tool should be able to fix, and bringing all 4 of them together is/could be the way to end the NEED for war in Erfworld (although I suspect they may have other uses when combined, and those who collect them will have a choice to make)

I'm not sure any tools are actually needed. The true reasons for the more-or-less perpetual war in Erfworld are, as far as we know, things like paranoia, hunger for power, ignorance, uncertainty... It would be perfectly possible for all Sides to remain small and self-sufficient. If nobody fights and nobody pops new units once their upkeep gets close to their income, if everybody lets other sides check their army sizes and positions, if everybody agrees to non-aggression pacts with debilitating penalty clauses, if everybody tries to cooperate towards restoring this state any time a random event disrupts it... You get stable peace.

Problem is there's too many people with Ambitions

And we should bear in mind that Erfworld is designed to *encourage* war. Consider the economies of current Sides. We are told that bigger sides run into problems and simple logic tells us that these problems must be built into the very laws of the world. You see, basic geometry tells us that without some kind of artificial penalty a Side that would double the length of its borders (needing twice more troops to maintain the density of its border defenses) should have four times the number of cities (and the same would go for income). A Side big enough could have garrisons ten times FAQ's total army in every city within ten turn's move into its borders, one scout in every hex in its territory and *still gain huge amounts of schmuckers every turn*. Say, you make your Side's territory ten times longer and ten times wider, meaning your borders are ten times longer - and you own hundred times more cities because your *area* grows faster than your borders. So there has to be some kind of penalty that cripples big sides and therefore encourages warfare and instability. In Erfworld, being too small makes you easy prey and being too big undermines your economy and the density of your defences, and you are threatened by enemies of all sizes so you can't optimize for one scenario. Cue perpetual warfare.

Heck, Erfworld must be full of small, efficient sides that only exist for a short while before they get wiped out. Notice how all the big players (ignoring Decrypted here) depend on conquest to maintain their overgrown armies? Notice how many cities get razed? This means the world must be full of small, fresh Sides that basically serve to efficiently generate resources and then get wiped out and this goes on and on. They spend their brief existences generating resources (unencumbered by the mystic big-side penalty) and then they are harvested by Sides too big to maintain their own armies without looting but so big that the small Sides stand next to no chance.

And there's probably nothing Parson's bubble-kingdom tricks can do about this. Sides big enough to be stable will likely remain big enough to bolster their income by looting, and once two or more Sides learn such tricks you are back to square one, only you have less but bigger players. This means I see only three possible scenarios that lead to a stable and relatively peacefull Erfworld

a) one stable Side gets so big no other force can oppose it

b) an alliance of small Sides (or a number of cooperating small sides) decides to prevent the need for war by keeping their armies so small they can pay their upkeep from their own resources AND this alliance is strong enough and cohesive enough to defeat anybody attacking them

c) some mystic force, possibly linked to Arkentools, changes the very laws of Erfworld, for example those that influence upkeep (I'm not sure the Decrypted are such a solution, though)

That's very astute, actually. World Peace on Erf is about as doable as it is on Earth: it's theoretically possible, but practical matters always get in the way (like population growth, and social/ideological conflicts).

A world without conflict of any kind either quickly develops a new reason for it, or becomes stagnant and dies. It's just not a healthy situation. However, neither is an entropic system of constant warfare inherently stable. It's been held in place for a long time by the rules of the world, but if someone were to break those rules... In the words of a famous movie character, "Life will find a way."

I'm not sure any tools are actually needed. The true reasons for the more-or-less perpetual war in Erfworld are, as far as we know, things like paranoia, hunger for power, ignorance, uncertainty... It would be perfectly possible for all Sides to remain small and self-sufficient. If nobody fights and nobody pops new units once their upkeep gets close to their income, if everybody lets other sides check their army sizes and positions, if everybody agrees to non-aggression pacts with debilitating penalty clauses, if everybody tries to cooperate towards restoring this state any time a random event disrupts it... You get stable peace.

I disagree. I think the fundamental problem is leveling. Erfworld pops hostile creatures and barbarians all the time. And the barbarians need a source of income or they will croak, so they have to raid. Creatures will fight people. Even if you only fight wandering creatures in self-defense, you will level up the victors to the point where you are no longer self-sufficient. Since there is no natural attrition, you're stuck in a scenario where you either have to croak your own people... for successfully leveling(!), or you go out and kill other Side's peoples.

Erfworld math dictates perpetual conflict, even in a world where people want to be peaceful. I do think that the four Arkentools are needed to manage peace. The Arkendish's thinkamancy allows you to monitor your Side and send units where needed. The Arkenpliers let you maintain decrypted units to handle barbarians and beasts for defense. I'm not sure how the Arkenhammer will contribute. And we have no idea what the fourth Arkentool is or does, or if there are other unknown Arkentools out there.

To the point about self sufficient Erf world. Parson seems to already have started to piece together a system of self sufficiency "hacks". Who knows how far he can take it. Maybe the mechanics lend themselves to a utopian style existence if they can first, conquer the world and then setup uniformly distributed level 2 cities across the world with sustainment hacks in place. leave no room for barbarians to pop. i recon if he does something like that, even though it will be outrageously boring existance, the titians will concede that the game is over and his side won.

A world without conflict of any kind either quickly develops a new reason for it, or becomes stagnant and dies. It's just not a healthy situation.

lolwut

Well, think of it. With no conflict, then either one of two things will happen:

First off, if the population continues to expand then eventually there will be scarcity, and ergo a new reason for conflict. But if growth is stymied to preclude this process, if there isn't active rebellion against whatever is enforcing such a state of affairs then there's not much more incentive to live; you might as well replace people with mindless robot drones. Then the process of slow decay sets in.

To have a healthy environment you need a continual pattern of growth and dieback. War is a major cause of dieback for humans, and thus some conflict is healthy for society as a whole. I know it's not pretty, and I don't wan't to sound like I endorse the slaughter of innocents; but I'm afraid it's just another sad symptom of living an imperfect world.

A world without conflict of any kind either quickly develops a new reason for it, or becomes stagnant and dies. It's just not a healthy situation.

lolwut

Well, think of it. With no conflict, then either one of two things will happen:

First off, if the population continues to expand then eventually there will be scarcity, and ergo a new reason for conflict. But if growth is stymied to preclude this process, if there isn't active rebellion against whatever is enforcing such a state of affairs then there's not much more incentive to live; you might as well replace people with mindless robot drones. Then the process of slow decay sets in.

To have a healthy environment you need a continual pattern of growth and dieback. War is a major cause of dieback for humans, and thus some conflict is healthy for society as a whole. I know it's not pretty, and I don't wan't to sound like I endorse the slaughter of innocents; but I'm afraid it's just another sad symptom of living an imperfect world.

If there isn't competition due to lack of resources people might as well be robots? And what do you mean by slow decay? People still strive to make their lives better in peacetime. More so in fact than in times of war where effort is spent to make others' lives worse/end. And I don't see how dying off makes things healthy. Either constant growth or reaching a maintenance level of population seem to be to me at least better end goals than ups and downs.

Infinite growth of population is possible as far as upkeep is concerned and it's a point I've thougt of for a while. GK would have won if Parson still had the sword of ruthlesness. According to my favorite hero:Part 1 of the recipe for successRaw overwhelming power.Part 2 How willing you are to debase yourself before feeling bad.

The Plan to conquer all of Erf. As many turns of peace as possible.Pop units nonstop in all your cities.Hunt Dwagons, hunt all barbarian type units in your entire domain.

Now, you're looking at overkilling your upkeep. That's where debasing yourself comes in.Almost as evil as a suit of armor entirely composed of babies.Executions daily!Everyday execute and decrypt all units with an upkeep that it is possible to decrypt. Snowball the size of your forces until no army on erf can win a battle against you. (Granted every side on erf working together could suicide and build faster than you.)But that's when you start conquering cities. You have a max schmuckers per turn due to the fact you have minimum upkeep so every city you own can pop, using dragon rely wanda can be present at all executions. I believe we've even seen a decrypted level by killing a prince. So you could choose who to give the experience to. Your force would just get bigger and bigger only capped by a maybe yet to be seen unit cap.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum